Fight Malaria..With Mosquitos

[Kia]

GM mosquito 'could fight malaria' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6468381.stm)


A genetically-modified (GM) strain of malaria-resistant mosquito has been created that is better able to survive than disease-carrying insects.

It gives new impetus to one strategy for controlling the disease: introduce the GM insects into wild populations in the hope that they will take over.

The insect carries a gene that prevents infection by the malaria parasite.

Details of the work by a US team appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

In the laboratory, equal numbers of genetically modified and ordinary "wild-type" mosquitoes were allowed to feed on malaria-infected mice.

As they reproduced, more of the GM, or transgenic, mosquitoes survived. After nine generations, 70% of the insects belonged to the malaria-resistant strain. [
.....


I find this fascinating. Malaria is a huge issue for many poor countries and even wealthy ones throughout the world. If this strategy to combat malaria is plausible and actually works the lives saved would be astronomical. My question(s) is what do you think would the impact be of GM Mosquitos on the environment? Is it possible that Malaria could mutate and GM Mosquitos become carriers? Do you think this is a viable long term solution to the problem? What benefit would the eradication of malaria be to poor countries trying to raise themselves out of poverty?


Personally, I worry a little about the introduction of such resilient insects into the environment. If enough testing was done to analyze how they would effect the surrounding habitats and it was deemed harmless I would advocate the immediate implication of such a plan. Another worry is Malaria mutating and becoming able to survive inside such hosts...if these mosquitos can live for longer then this would mean they could infect even more people.

Interesting article nevertheless.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Heard one of the experts working on this in radio 4 this morning.


The danger here is sensationalism. We are at least two decades away from results, and the mosquitos aren't yet safe to release.

So ermm, exciting, yeah. Just a bit premature.

-Alex

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:58 am
Another worry is Malaria mutating and becoming able to survive inside such hosts...if these mosquitos can live for longer then this would mean they could infect even more people.
The only reason they live longer is because they're not infected with the malaria parasite. Presumably that's the only gene that's been changed.

[ichneumon]

The only reason they live longer is because they're not infected with the malaria parasite. Presumably that's the only gene that's been changed.

the parasite reduces the fecundity of the mosquito a small amount.

ideally, this anti-malaria sequence should be linked to a specific type of pesticide resistance (DDT), so that we can actually remove the malarial mosquitoes from the environment. all of the 4 varieties of malarial are specific to humans - even if the refractory mosquitoes died out or reverted, the parasite would be gone.

this is one of the best hopes we have for this disease, because malaria vaccines are almost impossible. the parasite actually shifts antigens - the immune system never learns to deal with it. and they are developing drug resistances at a horrifying pace.

[Severian]

Originally posted by from the article
However, when both sets of insects were fed non-infected blood they competed equally well.

For resistant mosquitoes to be useful in the wild, they must survive better than non-resistant mosquitoes even when not exposed to malaria.

So okay, the only advantage is malaria resistance. And as ichneumon says, you'd have to give the GMO mosquitos some other advantage also, like DDT resistance. (Then spray people's homes with DDT.)

I gotta wonder about the 10-20 years. That's a long time to develop and test a single new organism, while a million people die of malaria every year, and many more are seriously ill.

This may be a case where an excessive research burden is imposed by paranoia about the mere fact something is genetically modified and therefore automatically Unclean! Frankenstein-like! A Thing Man Was Not Meant to Know! If God(dess) Had Wanted Us To Splice Genes (S)He Would Have Given Us Restriction Enzymes!

There needs to be testing of course, once you release it you can't unrelease it, but 10-20 years? To make sure there's no consequence worse than millions dying of malaria?

[Vanguard1917]

There needs to be testing of course, once you release it you can't unrelease it, but 10-20 years? To make sure there's no consequence worse than millions dying of malaria?

That's right. So, what the third world needs now is DDT. We need to demand that the West drops all opposition to DDT, and for third world countries to be able to use DDT however they see fit.

Let's not forget that deaths from malaria massively increased after the effective ban on DDT - which was, of course, a consequence of environmentalist lobbying and pressure.

Like Mozambique foreign minister Alcinda Abreu said the other year, we need DDT or an alternative, 'not blah, blah, blah'.

[ichneumon]

That's right. So, what the third world needs now is DDT. We need to demand that the West drops all opposition to DDT, and for third world countries to be able to use DDT however they see fit.

1)DDT will only work for about a year. the mosquitoes already have the resistance genes in places, they've just slipped from the mainstream due to genetic cost of resistance

2)spraying for mosquitoes is NOT the same as agricultural spraying. mosquito-DDT sprays the walls inside houses with polymer DDT. mosquitoes land on the walls and die

3)the resurgence of malaria was due to drug resistance, not the banning of DDT. that was much later. right now, there's only one drug that really works for malaria, it's expensive and almost impossible to synthesize.

4)10cent mosquito nets work just as well - no one will pay for them.

[Vanguard1917]

From Wikipedia (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt)):

'In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969.'

'After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400% increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is less than 50 per year. South Africa could afford and did try newer alternatives to DDT, but they proved less effective.'

'Malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT. Only Ecuador, which has continued to use DDT, has seen a reduction in the number of malaria cases in recent years.'

[ichneumon]

from the same source:


One old study that attempts to quantify the lives saved due to banning agricultural use of DDT, and thereby the spread of DDT resistance, has been published in the scientific literature: "Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[69]


In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. Although the country resumed spraying with DDT, many of the local mosquitoes had acquired resistance to DDT in the interim, presumably because of the continued use of DDT for crop protection, so the program was not nearly as effective as it had been before. Switching to the more-expensive malathion in 1977 reduced the malaria infection rate to 3,000 by 2004. A recent study notes, "DDT and Malathion are no longer recommended since An. culicifacies and An. subpictus has been found resistant.


you should be BANNED WITH A QUICKNESS for deliberately distorting information like you just did.


DDT ban myth (http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm)


The eradication program ended not because of any environmental concerns, but because it did not work. The mosquitoes had grown resistant to insecticides, and the microorganisms that cause malaria had become resistant to the drugs used against them. In many areas the numbers of cases of malaria greatly exceeded what it was before the effort was started. If events had been different, if DDT had not been used heavily in agriculture and there was no shortage of funds the outcome might have been different. Malaria might have joined smallpox as a disease that had been eliminated from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, such was not the case. As early as 1967 it was clear that the effort had failed, and in 1972 the official policy shifted from eradication to control of malaria.

it was the anti-life industrialists LIKE YOU spraying by the kilo on anything that moved that made it useless. they are responsible for 4,000 people who die every day from malaria, not the greens.

let me make it clear: all of those "facts" ignore the FACT that malaria was being treated by cheap and effective drugs - the change in death rates was not due to DDT. but the drugs stopped working, as did the DDT, mostly due to overuse in agriculture. DDT is useful when sprayed conservatively as a part of a comprehensive plan, but we have no real solution.

in fact, the resurgence of malaria is a humiliating defeat for the "master nature" crowd. nature fought back, and now malaria is worse than it ever was, and we are nearly helpless against it. nevertheless, this is MY battle, and i will fight it every day for the rest of my life. what the hell do you do?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:06 pm
That's right. So, what the third world needs now is DDT. We need to demand that the West drops all opposition to DDT, and for third world countries to be able to use DDT however they see fit.
That's utter nonsence. DDT is not the only available inseticide, nor it is particularly effective against mosquitoes. On the other hand, it is very slow to biodegradate, and it degrades into substances that are almost as toxic as DDT itself. It is cumulative and poisons human beings slowly and irreversibly.

Whether "the West" drops its opposition to DDT or not (Ha! as if DDT wasn't manufactured by "western" transnational corporations!), fact is, we, the unwashed "non-Westerners" would still oppose it, because we oppose being poisoned to satisfy the profit-lust of chemical industry.


Let's not forget that deaths from malaria massively increased after the effective ban on DDT - which was, of course, a consequence of environmentalist lobbying and pressure.

No ban on DDT would be effective if not enforced by Third-World governments. It is completely silly to believe Third-World countries banned such panacaea just out of an irresistible compulsion to obey "environmentalist lobbyists".


Like Mozambique foreign minister Alcinda Abreu said the other year, we need DDT or an alternative, 'not blah, blah, blah'.

Or, in other words, the corrupt Mozambican elite wants workers around the world, First and Third, to poison themselves with DDT-loaded animal fat, so that they can make their latifundia more profitable. Nice deal!

The alternative is there, it is called "pyrethroids".

Luís Henrique

[Janus]

Some developing nations still use DDT today only because it's cheap and still effective to a certain degree. They really don't have much of a choice so I think the best option is to work on combined defenses including pesticides, non-chemical alternatives, as well as continuing development on health vaccines and medicine.

[Vanguard1917]

That's utter nonsence. DDT is not the only available inseticide, nor it is particularly effective against mosquitoes. On the other hand, it is very slow to biodegradate, and it degrades into substances that are almost as toxic as DDT itself. It is cumulative and poisons human beings slowly and irreversibly.

DDT is effective and is neither dangerous to human health nor to the humanity's natural environment.


No ban on DDT would be effective if not enforced by Third-World governments. It is completely silly to believe Third-World countries banned such panacaea just out of an irresistible compulsion to obey "environmentalist lobbyists".

The effective ban on DDT was a direct result of Western environmentalist political pressure.


Or, in other words, the corrupt Mozambican elite wants workers around the world, First and Third, to poison themselves with DDT-loaded animal fat, so that they can make their latifundia more profitable. Nice deal!

The elected Mozambique government's decisions are a million times more legitimate than those of unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative Western environmentalist lobbyists in various international organisations or NGOs.

Western environmentalists have no right to decide what is best for Africa.

----------------------

Here's a very good article from today's Times newspaper (link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article1555534.ece)):

Green-eyed fools should buzz off

Mick Hume: Notebook

Coming soon to a bedroom near you: the Good Mosquito? Scientists are reportedly trying to engineer a genetically modified bug , with green eyes or fluorescent testicles, to combat the spread of malaria. But beating a disease that kills almost 3,000 children a day will involve swatting other green pests who put their concerns before those of Africa.

Anti-malarial GM mosquitoes remain a distant prospect. Yet already The Times has to report that any such innovation “would prove controversial with environmental groups”. These same groups have crusaded for 30 years to stop people killing mosquitoes with dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) — with devastating results for Africans.

Last year the World Health Organisation finally conceded that indoor spraying with DDT is safe and effective. Better three decades late than never, some might say. Yet many still suffer DDT-denial. Eco-alarmists who claim that the science of global warming “proves” malaria is coming to Britain seem less keen to face the scientific case for DDT, instead of searching for any alternative.

Thus the BBC’s Red Nose Day jamboree last week broadcast just about every taboo word except “DDT”. Instead, their antimalaria campaign, fronted by ghoulish pictures of a child dying, asked us to buy mosquito nets for Africa. Is that really the best we can offer? Colonial-era “technology”, updated with some insect repellent, under which Africans swelter while we sleep with a clear conscience? Oddly, there was no mention that South Africa has now abandoned these nets in favour of indoor DDT spraying, which one US senator describes as “a huge mosquito net over an entire household for round-the-clock protection”.

Buzzing about the new nets, Jon Snow of Channel 4 News says that “all our lives, the war on malaria has been about eradication” but now in Africa it has switched to “personal protection”. In other words, Africans must learn to live with the malaria-spreading mosquito. Why? We won “the war on malaria” in Europe through large-scale economic and social development. Yet this is now frowned upon (along with DDT and GM mosquitoes), by those demanding that Africa abides by the low-growth code of “sustainability”, which should help to sustain the bugs. I even read of DDT spraying being opposed by “an insect pest management and pesticide toxicology consultant”. It appears there is a new breed of parasite in Africa.

[bcbm]

Interesting that Strawman1917 completely ignored ichneumon's trouncing of his stupid argument. Of course, that's what he always does when the absurd and flat-out wrong logic of his arguments is exposed.


Western environmentalists have no right to decide what is best for Africa.

As you, a first-worlder, tell a third-worlder what is right for him and his country? Apparently Western industrialists do have the right to decide what is best for Africa?

[Vanguard1917]

As you, a first-worlder, tell a third-worlder what is right for him and his country? Apparently Western industrialists do have the right to decide what is best for Africa?

Africans want development - something which capitalism is not providing for them and something which Western environmentalists wish to deny them. Africans want to enjoy the advantages that many of us in the West take for granted. Living life free from the threat of malaria is one of those advantages.

In order to win the war against disease Africa needs rapid and large-scale economic development. For Western environmentalists (like 'ichneumon'), Africans should just learn to be happy with mosquito bed nets.


Interesting that Strawman1917 completely ignored ichneumon's trouncing of his stupid argument. Of course, that's what he always does when the absurd and flat-out wrong logic of his arguments is exposed.

It's a proven fact that DDT is effective against the spread of malaria. That's why African governments are calling on the West to drop its opposition to it.

[ichneumon]

quote(vanguard1917)

In order to win the war against disease Africa needs rapid and large-scale economic development. For Western environmentalists (like 'ichneumon'), Africans should just learn to be happy with mosquito bed nets.

ichneumon = phd student of DISEASE ECOLOGY

quote(vanguard1917)

It's a proven fact that DDT is effective against the spread of malaria. That's why African governments are calling on the West to drop its opposition to it.

THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL BAN ON DDT. western governments won't buy produce contaminated with DDT, and thus it is not used for agriculture. which is irrelevant, because it's useless now.


wikipedia quotes follow:


However, USAID "favored" DDT alternatives in its funding:

Contrary to popular belief, USAID does not "ban" the use of DDT in its malaria control programs. From a purely technical point of view in terms of effective methods of addressing malaria, USAID and others have not seen DDT as a high priority component of malaria programs for practical reasons. In many cases, indoor residual spraying of DDT, or any other insecticide, is not cost-effective and is very difficult to maintain. In most countries in Africa where USAID provides support to malaria control programs, it has been judged more cost-effective and appropriate to put US government funds into preventing malaria through insecticide-treated nets, which are every bit as effective in preventing malaria and more feasible in countries that do not have existing, strong indoor spraying programs.

i fully support the use of DDT in indoor spraying campaign, but honestly, there's no money for it. the bednets cost the same as one application and last for years.


Indeed, the problems facing health officials in their fight against malaria neither begin nor end with DDT. Experts tie the spread of malaria to numerous factors, including the resistance of the malaria microbe itself to the drugs traditionally used to treat the illness[63] and a chronic lack of funds in the countries worst hit by malaria.

it should be noted that malaria is MUCH more prevalent now than 500 years ago. it's spread worldwide - and has only vanished from rich nations. so, if industrialization cured it in the rich nations, why isn't it the cause of what is happening in the rest of the world? malaria has a higher per capita global death rate now than any time in the past.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:41 pm
DDT is effective and is neither dangerous to human health nor to the humanity's natural environment.
You are wrong.

Extension Toxicology Network DDT (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ddt.htm)

Luís Henrique

[Severian]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+March 23, 2007 04:00 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ March 23, 2007 04:00 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 04:41 pm
DDT is effective and is neither dangerous to human health nor to the humanity's natural environment.
You are wrong.

Extension Toxicology Network DDT (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ddt.htm) [/b]
A link which shows that DDT is, in fact, a toxin. Don't sprinkle it on your breakfast.

Vanguard1917 is definitely overstating the case; it's not a good idea to spray DDT on crops.

Nor was the decline in anti-malaria spraying primarily the result of environmentalist pressure - it could have continued with other pesticides after all. It's more that there was a big push based on a hope of wiping out malaria, then a collapse of anti-malaria efforts when that proved harder than expected. See the NY Times article I link further down.

But the Mozambican government is not demanding the use of DDT on latifundia, contrary to what you (Luis) suggest earlier. It is proposing its use for spraying houses to keep mosquitos out of them.

Any number of studies have suggested DDT can sometimes be the most effective, and way of doing that. And reasonably safe considering the millions who die from malaria. It's a conclusion finally reached by the WHO, even, as one of the earlier articles mentioned.

A long NY Times article with some good information about DDT and Malaria. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEEDA1738F932A25757C0A9629C8B 63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=1)

A good political summary of the situation, I think:

Major environmentalist organizations, for example, waged a successful effort against the unquestionably toxic pesticide DDT, resulting in a welcome halt to its use throughout the imperialist world.

No comparable energy or resources, however, are now being devoted to campaigning against various imperialist governments and agencies that are refusing to fund the use of DDT in some 25 semicolonial countries where--applied in relatively small quantities--it is the most effective way to control mosquitoes that spread malaria. That disease kills more than 1 million people annually worldwide, most of them children, and recurs for a lifetime in those who are "cured."
from the Militant (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6533/653350.html)

[Luís Henrique]

Here is information about PYRETHRINS AND PYRETHROIDS (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/pyrethri.htm), inseticides that have much less side effects than DDT, both in toxicological and ecological terms.

The insistence in a particular substance - DDT - that is a dangerous pollutant, seems strange. Even if it is somewhat more efficient, such efficience is more than counterbalanced by its dangers.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Nor was the decline in anti-malaria spraying primarily the result of environmentalist pressure - it could have continued with other pesticides after all.

It was environmentalist pressure which persuaded the World Health Organisation to ban DDT (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1873735,00.html)). And, as your NY Times article points out: '[DDT] lasts twice as long as the alternatives. It repels mosquitoes in addition to killing them, which delays the onset of pesticide-resistance. It costs a quarter as much as the next cheapest insecticide.'

Due to environmentalist pressure, Africa lost their most effective weapon against malaria - DDT: 'the chemical weapon that helped rid Europe and the former USSR of malaria decades ago', as the Guardian article writes.

The environmentalists are responsible for the masses dead and sick from a disease that could by now have been under control had DDT not been banned.

[ichneumon]

However, DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics. In many developing countries, spraying programs (especially using DDT) were stopped due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation. Efforts were shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides.

there is not now nor has there ever been an international ban on using DDT for malaria control. from your own article, which you are again misrepresenting:


The WHO says use of DDT declined because of lack of government money but also because of "general disapproval" of its use for fear of its effect on human and animal health. It is one of the persistent organic pollutants that linger in the body for years and whose long-term impact is not completely understood.

....

She and other groups concerned about pesticides would not block the use of DDT "until it is quite clear that alternatives are available", she said. "But there are serious chronic health implications of exposure to DDT. It is a case of acute effects versus long-term effects."

Using DDT, she said, could be "sowing the seeds of endocrine disruption and cancers, particularly breast cancer".

3rd world nations stopped using it because it was clear that mosquitoes were developing resistance, and it was also clear that DDT was toxic to humans. no one forced anyone to do this - it was a local decision.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:52 am
DDT: 'the chemical weapon that helped rid Europe and the former USSR of malaria decades ago', as the Guardian article writes.
That's just wrong. Europe got rid of malaria, not due to DDT, but due to the drainage of swamps. Now the difference is, temperate forests are not a good habitat for malaria
mosquitoes - unlike the equatorial jungle. And while European marshes and swamps were expendable ecosystems, the rainforest is not. We can't get rid of the rainforest to erradicate malaria like Europe did with its swamps.


The environmentalists are responsible for the masses dead and sick from a disease that could by now have been under control had DDT not been banned.

Malaria cannot be erradicated. But the responsibility for malarial deaths and morbility does not pertain to the environmentalists, but rather to neoliberals, who advocated the dismantling of public health services, including "mata-mosquitos" - the civil servants who used to spray inseticides in urban and rural areas. Do not delude yourself, if DDT spraying was made mandatory, African countries would still be unable to do it - because the IMF has forbade them from "wasting" public money on such activities.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

That's just wrong. Europe got rid of malaria, not due to DDT, but due to the drainage of swamps. Now the difference is, temperate forests are not a good habitat for malaria
mosquitoes

I don't know about that. In fact, until the 1920s, malaria was pretty endemic throughout Europe and America. After WW2, Europe and the US used DDT, and malaria was eradicated.


Malaria cannot be erradicated.

A mistype?


But the responsibility for malarial deaths and morbility does not pertain to the environmentalists, but rather to neoliberals, who advocated the dismantling of public health services, including "mata-mosquitos" - the civil servants who used to spray inseticides in urban and rural areas. Do not delude yourself, if DDT spraying was made mandatory, African countries would still be unable to do it - because the IMF has forbade them from "wasting" public money on such activities.

Then the simple response is, attack those policies, not DDT.

It was environmentalist pressure and fear-mongering (which began with the publication of environmentalist Rachel Carson's silly book Silent Spring around 40 years ago) which gave way to worldwide hostility to DDT. International health and environmental agencies pressured countries to give up the use of DDT. Countries like Bolivia and Belize, for example, have even admitted halting DDT-use due to pressure from USAID (the US Agency for International Development).

Whenever DDT-use has been halted by a country, that country has seen rises in malaria. In South Africa, for example, malaria cases rose by around 1000% when the governmnent decided to stop using DDT. When DDT was reintroduced in 2000, there was a radical decrease in malaria cases. In Latin America, the only country which saw a reduction in DDT cases in the 1990s was Ecuador - due to its continued use of DDT while other Latin American governments were banning it.


Any number of studies have suggested DDT can sometimes be the most effective, and way of doing that. And reasonably safe considering the millions who die from malaria.

After 50 years of research, there is not a single replicated study which shows that DDT causes any harm to human health. DDT is safe.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 10:31 pm
The insistence in a particular substance - DDT - that is a dangerous pollutant, seems strange. Even if it is somewhat more efficient, such efficience is more than counterbalanced by its dangers.
I'd suggest you read the NYT article I linked, or consider look up what the WHO and other malaria-fighting organizations have said.

It's not strange at all that people would insist on the most effective pesticide, when you consider that malaria kills a million people a year, and makes many other seriously, even permanently ill.

It'd have to be a lot more toxic than it is - for to outweigh that. Especially since we're talking about its use in small quantitites.

[ichneumon]

this is an odd report - i'm still not sure what to make of it. it works, though. it shows that DDT utterly failed to control malaria, and that only after they stopped using it, was malaria controlled.

Malaria Eradication in Mexico (http://www.earthportal.org/forum/?p=184)

[Vanguard1917]

Friday 11 May 2007
What is the most ethical way to fight malaria? (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3347/)
Our ethical columnist on DDT, bed nets and GM mosquitoes.
Ethan Greenhart



Dear Ethan,

I have been reading a lot about the problem of malaria lately and I was wondering if perhaps it is time we reconsidered our attitude to DDT. A lot of people seem to die in Africa. Would it be ethical to consider using just a little alongside bed nets and such like to stop this?

Charles Marsh-Feaver
Liverpool

Dear Charles,

Please step back and take time to consider the content of your statement. What you are suggesting is that it might be ethical carefully to select which form of insecticide (a term which should be uttered in the same breath as ‘genocide’) is most appropriate for Africa.

Banning DDT was one of the few decent, planet-sensitive things that human beings have managed in the past few decades. Rachel Carson rightly pointed out in Silent Spring that birds were terribly and unintentionally affected by this vile chemical. But even the lovely Rachel did not do enough to discuss the toll on DDT’s intended target. Before that ban, billions of innocent insects were being slaughtered in the name of preventing human disease. How can such a wilful destruction of life be regarded as ethical?

Now, DDT is being brought back in some countries to prevent malaria. But the implication is that an insect’s life is worth less than a human’s. If we are truly to live as one with nature, we must reject this ridiculous notion that we are in any way superior to other living species.

This doesn’t just apply to DDT. Far too many people I know who are sympathetic to the idea that DDT is just plain wrong then suggest that bed nets are a positive alternative. How can this be? Very obviously, bed nets are designed to prevent mosquitoes from eating. If I stopped the dog that lives with us (also called Silent Spring - or Springy for short) from eating, I would surely be hauled in front of the authorities and charged with cruelty. Yet it seems that stopping mosquitoes from eating is a positively wonderful thing to do. One can only imagine the torment of our little flying friends, unable to secure a decent meal because of human selfishness. Our bodies are the products of Nature. Surely, just as Nature has shared her bounty with us, so we must share ourselves with all of her creatures?

It doesn’t stop there. Bed nets are soaked with deadly chemicals, just as harmful to mosquitoes as DDT. While you think that bed nets are some fluffy alternative to insecticide, they are in fact riddled with it! For a mosquito, touching a bed net is as deadly as running headlong into a 10,000-volt electrified fence would be for you. Why don’t YOU try it, Charlie?

It gets worse: some people are talking about producing a genetically-modified version of mosquitoes that will not carry the malaria parasite. As Jonathan Matthews of GM Watch, that most principled warrior against all things genetically modified, has said: ‘Whatever the initial advantages of GM mosquitoes, their evolutionary sustainability in the longer term is simply an unknown, and this could have a devastating effect on the food chain… Mosquito larvae can be at the base of the food chain for fish, while adult mosquitoes provide food for bats and birds. Mosquitoes are also important pollinators, as plant nectar forms a large part of their diet. So such a major human intervention could have worryingly unpredictable consequences.’

This is exactly right. It doesn’t matter a damn what ‘advantages’ the GM mosquito will have in combating malaria and saving human lives – instead we must think of the ecosystem, the food chain, the natural environment. It makes me feel warm inside to know there are people like Matthews who will say what others dare not: the planet is more important than the people who live on it, and protecting Mosquito Rights – their right to fly from plant to plant and to lay down their lives for bats – is more important than enabling some African family to believe it can protect itself from disease. Africans are becoming just as arrogant as we Westerners, so thank God there are people like Matthews to bring them back to their senses.

Africans should be grateful for their diseased existence instead of dumbly thinking they can make their lives better with technology. In fact, all this technology has been a disaster. As I have pointed out many times before, there are simply too many people on the planet. Nature’s control mechanism has always been disease. At a time when people are growing too old, too healthily in the ‘developed’ world, surely there should still be one place on the planet where sickness can keep population in check?

The real parasites are human beings, not mosquitoes. While so many people bleat about unfair discrimination, you never hear anyone talk about the problem of mosquito-phobia, do you? Maybe it’s time to challenge this hatred. Our slogan should be:

‘Just because they suck your blood
Doesn’t mean that they’re no good.’

I hope you will join me in this noble cause, Charlie, and leave your mosquito-phobic ideas behind.


Ethan Greenhart is here to answer all your questions about ethical living in the twenty-first century. Email him at [email protected] Read his earlier columns here.


reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3347/

[RedStarOverChina]

Wouldn't it be faster to just mass produce the medicine needed? It's easily curable with modern medicine, according to what I've heard. My grandmother's entire family died of malaria, and my grandmother survived just barely long enough for the CCP to liberate the area. She was given medicine and was cured just like that.

[ichneumon]

the medicines don't work anymore, and the new ones are very expensive. the latest drug is from ancient chinese medicine, and can only be grown as a plant or made by a recombinant bacteria. still, yea for chinese medicine!

since malaria requires a human host, what is done is to stockpile several drugs, then go into an area and just completely wipe it out and keep going. it takes lots of money and political will.

[Vanguard1917]

Interesting article about Rachel Carson:

Did Rachel Carson really kill more people than Stalin? (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3424/)
On the centenary of her birth, the author of Silent Spring is idolised by greens and demonised by the right. Both sides need to turn over a new leaf.